↓ Skip to main content

Transforming conotoxins into cyclotides: Backbone cyclization of P‐superfamily conotoxins

Overview of attention for article published in Biospectroscopy, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Transforming conotoxins into cyclotides: Backbone cyclization of P‐superfamily conotoxins
Published in
Biospectroscopy, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/bip.22699
Pubmed ID
Authors

Muharrem Akcan, Richard J Clark, Norelle L Daly, Anne C Conibear, Andrew de Faoite, Mari D Heghinian, Talwar Sahil, David J Adams, Frank Marí, David J Craik

Abstract

Peptide backbone cyclization is a widely used approach to improve the activity and stability of small peptides but until recently had not been applied to peptides with multiple disulfide bonds. Conotoxins are disulfide-rich conopeptides derived from the venoms of cone snails that have applications in drug design and development. However, because of their peptidic nature, they can suffer from poor bioavailability and poor stability in vivo. In this study two P-superfamily conotoxins, gm9a and bru9a, were backbone cyclised by joining the N- and C-termini with short peptide linkers using intramolecular native chemical ligation chemistry. The cyclised derivatives had conformations similar to the native peptides showing that backbone cyclization can be applied to three disulfide-bonded peptides with cystine knot motifs. Cyclic gm9a was more potent at high voltage-activated (HVA) calcium channels than its acyclic counterpart, highlighting the value of this approach in developing active and stable conotoxins containing cyclic cystine knot motifs. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 33%
Student > Master 3 17%
Other 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 8 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 22%
Materials Science 1 6%
Unknown 5 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,696,598
of 25,420,980 outputs
Outputs from Biospectroscopy
#1,642
of 1,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#290,297
of 393,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biospectroscopy
#12
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,420,980 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,868 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 393,792 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.